Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

No corrections yet


(Beiaro Mr. Justice Sly and juries.)


The hearing of tho action brought by John Hardcastlc, head teacher of the Wetherill Park Public School, against Owen Tarrent, of Wetherill Park, for libel alleged to bo con- tained In a letter fonvarded by tho defendant to Mr. P. Board, Under-Secretary for Public Instruction, was concluded. Plaintiff claimed

£G0 damages.

Tile jury found a verdict for the full amount



Arthur Shirley-v George Willoughby.

This was an action brought by Arthur Shir- ley, actor, of Sydney, against George Wil- loughby, theatrical munager, also of Sydney, for tho recovery of £1000 damages.

Plaintiff set out that ho was a professional actor, and while under engagement with J. C. Williamson, Ltd., defondant induced that firm lo break and abandon the contract with plain- tiff, and he therefore suffered considerable loss financially, and «vas injured professionally.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, and denied that tho plaintiff had un engagement with J. C. Williamson, Ltd.

Mr. Mack (liihtructed by Mr. W. M. Daley) appeared > foi- tho plaintiff; aud Mr. Sh.tnd, K.C., and Mr. Wyndham Davies (instructed 1 y Mr. A. B. Davies) for the defendant.

Plaintiff,'in his evidence, said that he had been playing in defendant's companies for a considerable time. Shortly beroro last Chiist nias a notice was poBted at the Adelphi The- atre notifying tho members of the company in which he was playing that all engagements would terminate on a certain date. After Christmas plaintiff Interviewed the defendant regarding an engagement, ana ho was offered ono at £4 10s per week. Ho re- fused tbo offer, saying that ho would .have nothing to do with any position which

carried anything under £6 per week. He saw defendant about a week later, and he repeated the offer. Though there was no actual agreement betxveen plaintiff and de- fendant,'the former consented to go to rehear- sal with a new company, which was in tho pro- cess of formation. At this time he received a communication from J. C. Williamson, Ltd., and tho result of tho interview with the Sydney manager was an appointment with the Julius Knight company, which was then in Melbourne. He went to Melbourne, and saxv Mr. Darbyshire, manager for J. C. William- son, Ltd., there, and had a part allotted to him in the company. A-day or two later he had 'another conversation with Mr. Darby- shire, tho result of which was he lost his engagement with the Julius Knight company, because it was alleged that at the time he entered Into the agreement he was actually under contract with the defendant. Mr. Car- roll, who was in tho employ of defendant, was In Mclbourno at the timo, and plaintiff called on him. Mr. Carroll said that he had only obeyed instructions in tolling William- son's manager that plaintiff was under con- tract to the defendant. A few days later de- fendant arrived in Melbourne, and plaintiff asked him for an explanation ot the pro- ceedings. The conversation became heated, and defendant concluded by Buying, "If you xvon't work for mo I'll take jolly good care you won't work for Williamson. I'll boycott you throughout the profession."

The case stands part heard.

Digitisation generously supported by
Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation
Digitisation generously supported by